House of Assembly: Vol1 - WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 7 1910
from Agnes M. Joubert (widow of J. A. Joubert, Parliamentary Draftsman, Cape).
from T. A. Brain, Table Bay Harbour Board.
from natives, in the district of Barkly West, ordered off the Likatlong reserve.
from Mr. J. J. Healy, Pay Clerk, Salt River Railway Works.
from C. J. C. Gie, a pensioner, Education Department.
from P. Glidewell, painter, Salt River Railway Works.
from W. C. Wilcox, Cape and Orange Free State Governments’ telegraphist.
Officers in the Cape Civil Service who receive payment exceeding £10 in addition to ordinary salaries and allowances.
resumed the adjourned debate on the motion (to which an amendment had been moved), that the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates. He said he did not know whether one ought to refer in particular to the amendment, but he would like to say in regard to the amendment that, of course, he would vote for it, and he thought hon. members on his side of the House would vote for it; but whether that was the best way of dealing with the matter was another question. It put them in this position—that if they voted for the motion the action might be construed as though they were opposed to the principle laid down in the amendment. But that did not reasonably follow. He would suggest to those (hon. gentlemen who were concerned with a matter that was really of tragical importance that it would be much better to put it fairly and squarely before the House, and leave all these party and personal gibes out of their remarks. One hon. gentleman who spoke on the previous night complained that it was useless prolonging the debate, as they were only flogging the dead horse. He did not think the horse was dead; he thought that if one took the trouble one could find new and tender spots on the horse to flog. But he did not know if that trouble were taken it would be productive of much good. The point he would like to make was that upon the speech of the responsible Minister eight or ten of the acknowledged financial experts had given different versions of what that Minister meant when he dealt with the finances. He thought that if he were disposed to follow their example he would be discouraged by the fact that the Hon. the Minister of Finance would explain the whole position in a few minutes. There was one other point on which he would like to touch. In the Provincial Council Estimates they had incurred expenditure to the amount of £600,000. The other day when hon. members on his side of the House urged the appointment of the Commission, under the Constitution, it was regarded in something like a captious spirit. He thought that the arguments that had been advanced might well be considered by hon. members on the other side, and especially Ministers. He did not think there was one Minister who was really opposed to the appointment of this Commission. He did not know why it had not been appointed. He did not believe, for instance, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Hull) did not want a Commission. He was perfectly certain that if his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) were human at all, he did want a Commission. But this matter also concerned members, and they were left to guess the method by which these Estimates were framed. There were no executive committees created yet for the Provincial Councils, and, therefore, the terms of the Constitution had not been complied with. (Opposition cheers.) They must suppose that the Administrators took the largest share in the framing of these Estimates, or in putting them forawrd. Well, they were human, the same as hon. members were, and they were looking to the success of their respective Provinces. And what did they want to do? Economise in the interests of Union? Naturally, they would want to increase the Estimates. Now, how had these Estimates been arrived at? Had the parochial spirit prevailed? If so, they had got all the disadvantages of the group system of Parliamentary Government, with none of the advantages of publicity. If they had had this Commission they would have been able to say to the House and the constituencies that here was a perfectly impartial non-party Commission, which had gone into the merits of the matter, and had arrived at a decision, and there was no good re-opening the matter, because they had decided to accept the Commission’s judgment. But something, which he did not know, had prevented the Government from appointing a Commission. He did not know whether it was possible to get a Commission before the new Estimates were brought forward; but he would say that it would be very wise, from every point of view, to make an effort to get a Commission. If they were not going to break down the unitary system, they must throw responsibility upon the Provinces of finding money for the luxury they wanted. As long as they were going to allow the Provinces to indent for what they wanted, and the Union Government was going to pay for them, they were going to have trouble. At present there was no sense of responsibility, and he thought that every effort should be made at once to appoint an impartial authority to determine the relationship between the Union and the Provinces, and throw as much responsibility upon the Provinces as possible. He knew that hon. members opposite were not in favour of making the Provincial Councils paramount. The whole unitary system was going to depend upon the successful working of the Provincial Councils, and they would have to have taxation for themselves. However small, a beginning would have to be made, and made soon. (Opposition: Hear, hear.) Now they had been told by the Ministers of the Interior that the best thing to do was to accept his suggestion, which was to get through the Estimates as quickly as possible. Well, he did not agree with that. They had not had a long discussion upon these Estimates, which were the first figures given since Union. This discussion was not like the debates which took place on Cape lines.
re marked that the debates in the old Cape Parliament took place on Budgets relating to the future.
said that these Estimates had a great bearing upon the future. They would not worry themselves so much if they did not think that the Estimates had a bearing upon the future. He hoped the discussion would be continued, and vigorously, too, all through the committee stage. He wished to assure hon. members on his side of the House, who were in doubt in regard to their holidays at Christmas, that they were quite familiar with the argument that had been used. It was bluff, and was quite worn out. (Laughter.) Now, there was another point which he desired to raise, and that was in reference to the financial year. Parliament would probably be called together early in January each year. It was not quite apropos to the Budget, but he would like hon. members to consider that they were starting presumably upon a five years’ career—he would not accept the judgment of the Minister of the Interior when he told them it was going to be 50 years—for that period Parliament would meet annually early in January. Now, that meant that hon. members, who had children in schools, were not going to see them for five years. This was a very serious matter, and should not be decided for a few. He thought it was totally unnecessary to begin the session at the beginning of the holidays. Proceeding, the speaker said that the Minister of Finance had referred to a reduction in the railway rates of £480,000. As they would learn more about that from his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Sauer) on Thursday or Friday next, he would not deal with it in detail now. Then the hon. member for Uitenhage had talked about the possibility of the clause in the Constitution, relating to the railways being run at cost price after four years, being revised. Now, it was just as well for hon. members to know that, whether that was entrenched or whether it was an honourable understanding, that was as much inducement to certain sections of the community to enter Union as was the language and capital questions inducements to others to enter-Union. And if they were to touch that, they knew they were going to do something which a large section would consider a deliberate breach of the Convention. They were prepared to defend this clause, those of them who believed upon its merits. They would do so when the occasion arose, but at the present time he thought it was unnecessary. He would only like to say that the feeling was so strong that there would be very serious trouble if that suggestion were put forward. As regards the principal railway lines, he believed that the interest ought to be charged on the general Budget, on the taxpayer, because he really believed that it was time that hon. members who lived on the coast should realise that they owed their present position to-day to the railways, as they up-country had their existence. In theory he submitted it was absolutely indisputable that the interest charge on the railway ought to be as the interset charge on any other national asset. His hon. friends, who lived on the coast, did not like that view; but he would like to state that no country had developed by a fringe of cities on the coast. They could not hold off a Japanese or a Chinese gunboat, but they had to depend on the British Navy; and they would only become independent when they had developed inland. The development of South Africa in the future was necessarily inland; they had only got to look to the North; and they could not live on the coast. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had referred to the railway policy of Lord Milner, but he was under a misapprehension. He (Sir P. Fitzpatrick) would like to say what had happened, as he happened to be concerned in the transaction. The loan which had been arranged was 35 millions. What had been asked for was 40 millions, and the five millions extra was to do some of the works which had since been done in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. Had they been able to get that extra money, they would have been able to do that work earlier; but they had not got it, and Lord Milner had been faced with this: either there should be no development, or there should be development out of revenue. The huge railway rates was the reason of that, and it had been a deliberate calling upon those who could make the sacrifice to do so in the interests of the country; but what had been right then would be deplorable if it were ’to be continued as the future policy of the country. (Hear, hear.) It must also be remembered that it was Lord Milner who had introduced the profits’ tax, and these things could not have been done unless a huge scale of taxation had been maintained, because they had the Imperial Government guaranteeing that loan on the condition that there should be no more loans; and an official like Lord Milner was powerless to raise more loans. The Minister of the Interior (General Smuts) had warmed his heart and captured his imagination by his description of the possible development of South Africa. Hon. members had said that it was unwise to build up the country on one industry, which was “perishing,” although it might take a hundred years to perish. Long before there had been Responsible Government, he had been a very strong advocate of agricultural development, and such interests as he might have were infinitely more in agricultural development than in any other. He was rather amused at some references which had been made about them, and to read in the “South African News” an amusing account of a dinner given at the Carlton Hotel to Farmer Farrar and Farmer Phillips, who spoke of what they had done. (Laughter.) In other countries, however, they were, only too glad to welcome the man of means in agriculture, and he thought it would be very much wiser for the people of this country to encourage instead of ridiculing them. Continuing, he said that he wondered whether hon. members realised the significance of the figures which had been given by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Schreiner) the previous afternoon. He had not gone into them, but if the hon. member had verified them, they must make everybody think, and to bring it home to hon. members, with any rough-and-ready ideas as to segregation and the colour line, that there was something else to be done to maintain the white man’s supremacy in the country. Some years ago, when he was in Beira, he saw some very large spiders there, and asked an Indian waiter how he would catch them. “By hand,” replied the waiter. He said: “Would you catch them in your hand?” The waiter replied: “Not me; the Kafir boy.” (Laughter.) He thought that was a significant reply. Dealing with creameries, the hon. member said that he did not think it was good to help people too much, and he did think it necessary to compel their people to make personal effort and sacrifice, because the Government could not do everything for them. In the great industries of the country they were not part partners, but whole partners; and they had got to educate people that these were assets to be developed: not to be masters of the country, and not to be treated as hostile. In the end certain industries must perish, and begin to go down, and they had got to provide something for that time when the demands became such that these industries could not carry them. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips) had spoken of educating the boys. Yes, educate the white boys to compete in quality with what the inferior races could produce in quantity. The bushveld farm was only occupied about three months in the year. The highveld farm was not properly developed because they could afford to go to the bushveld farm. No closer settlement was possible; a railway was built, a farm near by was doubled in price, and the farm was fenced. They got an inferior class of stock through the mixing and through the trekking. The stock was inferior compared to other countries. Any stock was inferior that had got to travel 200 to 500 miles. Let them look at the influence of the wealthy landowner, who wanted a favour through his trekking, an exemption from some law, a facility, and be was so big and strong that the official could not stand up against him. He was not inclined to blame Ministers who had to deal with things like this. He could not find it in his heart to bring out these facts because he knew in many cases the influence of the big man in the district, who kept his farm looked up, was much too strong. He said by all means help the agricultural industry, teach the people, teach the children, build up scientific establishments, but they had got something more to do. The hon. member for Rustenberg pointed out the necessity for finding land for those who were accustomed to farming, and who had got no land. Where were they going to get the land? Land was locked up because it was wanted for two or three weeks or may be three months in’ the year.
Companies.
Yes, hit the companies if you like, but I will tell you the answer. Proceeding, he said that if his hon. friend had the pick of half-a-dozen colts he would not take the last pick, but the first. That was the case with the voortrekker. It had been going on for 60 years. They got the best land; they were good judges. The worst was left, but it was not really the worst since conditions had changed. What was left was taken by the companies, not for farming, but speculatively, because it had mineral wealth. He hoped they would have no illusions about the companies. He said, “Put the companies under the same law, but don’t exempt the landowner.” He had asked the Minister for Education questions with reference to the Agricultural College at Pretoria. He wanted particularly to know whether it was the intention of the Government to develop that as a really first-class Agricultural College, equal to the requirements of the whole of the Union, and he put in the “whole of the Union” deliberately, because they were not in a position to build two such Colleges, and if they were going to make a sacrifice for the sake of local sentiment —well, they were going to lose in efficiency. He knew there were questions, delicate questions, to settle. It was the decision of the Transvaal Government and the Transvaal people to build up such a College there. His opinion was that it was pre-eminently suited for it. In other parts of the world separate training was being given in domestic science for girls, and if hon. members realised the independence that they would as a result get from menial labour, he was certain that more of them would grudge it if the Government came forward with a million pounds loan to build this Agricultural College. That was what it would cost—£1,000,000—before it was complete. Sir Percy went on to say that he noticed a reference to the taxing of mines, a proposal which he confessed he had not studied. A proposal was made as regarded taxing profits. The diamond law of the Transvaal reserved 60 per cent. for the Government. He did not want to reopen old controversies, but he would like to say that if any hon. member of the House wished to discuss the 60 per cent. tax he was there to answer for it, and give him all the information he wanted. The diamond mines of the Transvaal and the Free State were not taxed at all. He was not asking that they should be. Those mines were not taxed to the extent of one penny of their profits. This share which the Government had got belonged to the public.
In what?
In the diamond mines. It belongs to the public under the Diamond Ordinance. Proceeding, he said that the public were entitled to 87½ per cent, of the diamond mines, but, almost entirely at his suggestion, the Government took 60 per cent, instead of 87½, giving other terms. He was not asking that those mines should be taxed, because he thought they ought to take into consideration the fluctuating character of the industry. His proposal was that, inasmuch as that 60 per cent. which the Government took represented the exhaustion of an asset, so it ought to be applied not to the relief of taxation, not to the relief of the general revenue, but to the creation of something in place of it. His proposal was that one half of it should go to the extinguishment of debt, and the other half to constructive works, as, for instance, this Agricultural College. Continuing, Sir Percy said he had had a telegram from Pretoria asking him to raise the question of the location of the Census Office. The Pretoria people looked upon this as a departure from the arrangement made in the Convention whereby Pretoria was to be the administrative capital. (Hear, hear.) He knew the arrangements regarding the efficiency and economy, but suppose it was said, “We will hold an extraordinary session of Parliament in Pretoria”? (Hear, hear.) He could imagine that something like a revolution would take place. Let them remember that when departments which ought to be at the administrative capital were moved elsewhere the same feeling was likely to be aroused in other quarters. He admitted, however, that there were other considerations which might be borne in mind. When they met again, went on the speaker, they would have fresh Estimates placed before them, and then they would have the policy of the Government. He did not know whether they would have a real whole-souled policy, because with the records of some of the members of the Ministry he did not think the House could expect a policy that would appeal to all. It would be a sort of compromise policy, but he hoped Parliament would remember that the principal taxable asset was represented by the industrial section, which was paying nearly all the taxation. Being able to pay it, it was proper that that section should pay it. They had not begrudged it from that side of the House, but it could be overdone. He did Lot ask for taxation of any particular section, but he did ask for individual effort and sacrifice. It was idle to talk about closer settlement, and the domination of the whites unless sacrifices were made. The landowners had to give facilities for those who could work, but who only lacked land. The land was locked up, but Government should find the key with which to unlock it. (Opposition cheers.)
was cheered when he rose a few minutes after three o’clock to reply to the debate. He said a great many speeches had been made, and a great deal of insinuation had been levelled against the Government, and insinuations had been made reflecting on the late Administration of the Transvaal. General statements had also been made with regard to extravagance, but none of the criticism could bear the test of examination. (Hear, hear.) Dealing first of all with the charge that he was not sufficiently clear, Mr. Hull said he had no desire to hide or conceal anything. If he had failed to make the financial position clear that failure was not due to any intention on his part, but rather to want of effort. He did not believe that the accusation that his financial statement was not clear was a genuine one, because hon. members would recollect what happened in that House immediately he concluded his Budget speech. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) immediately rose, and he (Mr. Hull) understood that gentleman to compliment him on the facility with which he had presented his figures. (Ministerial cheers.) He thought the hon. member for Durban said the figures were so interesting and blear that he hoped they would be printed.
I wish to correct that statement.
Order.
said that during the afternoon he delivered his Budget speech several hon. members opposite came to him, and said they had never heard a clearer statement. (Ministerial cheers.) Hon. members knew they could depend on what he said. (Laughter and Hear, hear.) The local newspaper press— controlled by his hon. friend sitting opposite—and the Rand newspapers—also controlled by the political party represented, on the other side of the House—were unanimous in sounding his praises.
Especially the “S.A. News.” (Laughter.)
said the hon. member for Port Elizabeth moved the adjournment of the debate on the Budget for three days. What a change came over the scene. When the debate was resumed his hon. friend had not a word of good to say of any part of the financial statement. The hon. member was perfectly right, and he (Mr. Hull) had no doubt that during the adjournment political heads were put together, and the Opposition probably said: “We are a political party. It is the duty of a party to criticise whatever comes from Government, and we as an Opposition must criticise.” (Laughter.)
Then there had been a complaint that there had been undue delay in framing the revenue and expenditure statements since Union. His hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) had said that it was only after questions had been asked that this information was supplied, in dribs and drabs. He believed that that was the phrase which he used. Now a more unfair or misleading statement had never been made. He would give them the facts. The House did not Start business for some days after the opening, and his revenue and expenditure statements were published in the “Government Gazette” in Pretoria on November 4. That statement comprised the revenue and expenditure returns for the months of June and July, so that how his hon. friend could make such a statement he did not know. He knew these had appeared, and yet he came and said that it was only after questions had been asked in Parliament that this information had been supplied in dribs and drabs. His hon. friend might ask: Why delay until November 4 before you published the returns? Any hon. member who was familiar with the working of Government accounts would recognise that it was physically impossible to get out the return at any earlier date. They must remember that on May 31 he dealt with four Provinces, and in each Province the revenue and expenditure returns were compiled on a totally different basis. All these had to be classified and co-ordinated. He could say that the Treasury staffs of all the Provinces, so to speak, worked night and day in order to get these statements classified on a uniform basis; and at the earliest possible opportunity he published these accounts. It was all very well for his hon. friend to criticise, hut he (Mr. Hull) made it his business to look up what he (Mr. Walton) had done when he was the Treasurer of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. He would also point out that when his hon. friend was in office he dealt with a normal time, and not an abnormal time, as in the case of himself (Mr. Hull). He found that in the year 1908 his hon. friend did not publish a statement.
I was not in office at the time.
I thought my hon. friend would say that. In the year 1907, when he was in office, he only published one return. I have published my returns monthly, and this contains more information than he published. In 1906—
But this is not true.
I am taking this from the report. Continuing, he said that in 1906 the accounts up to the end of June were only published at the end of December.(Laughter.) This was at a time when things were in a normal state, and yet his hon. friend, when he was in charge of affairs, could only get out his returns six months afterwards.
If the hon. member would allow me—I don’t know where he gets his information from.
Does the hon. member rise to a point of order?
I only wish to correct my hon. friend.
said that he thought he might safely say that that charge had failed. He had also been fold that in his Budget statement he had not discussed the position of the finances on May 51, that he had with held information from the House, and that he had concealed balances. He thought his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West had said that he had expected the House to make bricks without straw. He thought his right hon. friend had been the most vehement of all the critics, and he thought he was the first hon. member to start the hare of concealment. That hare had been assiduously pursued for the last four or five days, and he thought that, if his right hon. friend had not started that hare, his hon. friends on the other side would not have followed any such animal. In the course of pursuing the hare, the experts had obtained different results from the figures he had placed before the House. His hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth had said something about an amount of £290,000. His right hon. friend down there had fixed the amount at £4,800,000. (Laughter.) The next thing was that his hon. friend the Biblical member for Georgetown had run the concealed balance from the five millions set by his hon. friend up to ten millions. (Laughter.) What was more significant, his hon. friend for Georgetown gave an explanation of the figures in the Budget statement, and used the Budget figures; but he (Mr. Hull) thought that he had only led matters to a state of worse confusion. But his hon. friend the member for Uitenhage had made an unfortunate mistake by saying that he (Mr. Hull) had a secret, and he thought he should be careful when he pulled the legs of hon. members, especially hon. members connected with companies, because they did not like having their legs pulled. His hon. friend for Georgetown had worked himself into a great state of excitement, and proceeded to lecture him (Mr. Hull) as to his duties, and had said that in a Union House it was the duty of the Treasurer to win the confidence of the House. He knew all that. (Laughter.) His right hon. friend for Victoria West had said that he had had an able staff at the Treasury, and yet he had come down to the House and stated vaguely that the House would get the Union balances in a few weeks. He thought his right hon. friend could not have been in the House at the time the speech was made, because he (Mr. Hull) made clear the position of the revenue balances on May 31. He need only refer him to the speeches of hon. members opposite, whose figures confirmed the opening’ balances which he gave in the course of his statement. How his hon. friends could say such a thing he did not know.
Well, he knew that hon. members were anxious to know precisely—they said they did not understand—(Opposition: Hear, hear)—what the financial position was, as disclosed by him in the Budget statement, and he would make another effort, he hoped this time more successful, to supply hon. members with the figures. (Opposition: Hear, hear.) He wished to say that he was going to use precisely the same figures as he gave hon. members when he delivered his Budget statement, and perhaps he would be able to put the position more clearly and more lucid. Hon. members would remember that when he made his Budget statement, he first of all stated what the various Treasurers expected to get for the period ending June 30, 1910. He showed that the four Treasurers estimated for a deficit, and that, instead of a deficit, there was a surplus of £1,551,000 for the eleven months ending May 31. Then he went on to show what amount of money he as Treasurer of the Union, inherited from the four Treasurers on May 31, and that was an important figure. He gave details of the amount inherited from each colony, and he remembered the details were rather cheered on both sides of the House. He showed that from the Cape he inherited, including railway accruals, a sum of £321,000. (Opposition cries of “£421,000.”) No, he was right—£321,000. He saw that the “Cape Times” had slipped in £421,000. (Opposition laughter, and cries of “Oh, oh.”) The Cape, £321,000; Natal, £268,000; Transvaal, £1,015,000; and Orange Free State, £557,000. Cries of “£577,000.”) He was quoting the very same figures as he gave when he delivered his Budget.
You might tell us what the Exchequer balance of the Cape is.
said that the charge made against him was that he did not show the total amount of the revenue balances which the Union received on May 31. This particular question had been talked about in this House for the last four or five days. He showed the amount of the revenue balances inherited from the four colonies on May 31.
What did you do with them?
I shall deal with all these things in time. Don’t be impatient. Proceeding, he said that the total was £2,161,000. Now, that was the important figure. They must remember that the cash he received from the four colonies on May 31, including all their Exchequer balances, was £2,161,000. But that, of course, was revenue balances, and hon. members must recollect that that had nothing to do with loan balances. Well, these were the figures he gave to the House when he made his Budget statement. (Cries of “No.”) He went on with the amount of the loan balances. He said that the amount of the loan balances aggregated £2,630,000. Then he went on to say that he had redeemed Treasury Bills of the Cape and Natal amounting to £1,650,000, and that he had issued from the loan balances since May 31 a sum of £533,000. These two sums, for the redemption of Treasury Bills and loan issues, amounted to £2,183,000. Deducting that from his loan balances of £2,630,000, he was left with a balance on loan account of £447,000. That was a figure which hon. members would recollect he gave them during the course of his Budget statement. Therefore, the position was perfectly clear. The revenue balances amounted to £2,161.000, and the loan balances stood at £447,000. Now, that was the sum and substance of the charge made against him. The sum and substance of the charge made against him was that he assumed that hon. members of this House, in view of the fact that there were so many financiers in it, would be able to do a simple sum of addition.
He assumed that they would be able to add £2,161,000 to the sum of £447,000. That was the only mistake he had made. (Laughter.) He had assumed too much. (More laughter.) If they made that simple sum of addition, they would find that the cash balances, revenue balances, plus the loan balances, amounted to a sum of £2,608,000. Well, he hoped hon. members would understand the position now. Proceeding, Mr. Hull said that the right hon. gentleman for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had referred to a sum of two and a half millions. He had accused him of having “concealed” that amount. That was the expression or the term of reproach cast upon him. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) said, in the course of his speech, that he had found that a sum of two and a half millions had been concealed or put away in some pocket of the railway, and that was really where the hare had started. Well, he had listened to the speech of the right hon. gentleman very carefully, and could hardly believe his ears. He asked himself whether they from the North had made such a great mistake, whether they had forgotten to make provision for that amount under the Act of Union. But when he looked up the Act of Union, he found that these two and a half millions which he was supposed to have concealed, stuck away in an out-of-the way pocket, and deliberately kept away from the purview of the House, were the balances, or part of the balances, contemplated by section 129 of the Act. Section 129 of the Act of Union said, “All balances standing to the credit of any fund established in any of the colonies for railway or harbour purposes at the establishment of the Union shall be under the sole control and management of the Board, and shall be deemed to have been appropriated by Parliament for the respective works for which they have been provided.” Well, he agreed with his right hon. friend with regard to control by this House. He agreed with him that all the balances, whether they be balances of general administration or of the railways and harbours, ought to be under one control, but he did not agree with him that they should take away or divert funds, which were voted in the past by the Transvaal and Orange Free State for specific purposes, for purposes other than those for which they were created. That was the deliberate intention of the members of the Convention. It was the deliberate wish of the representatives of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State that these funds, these balances, which had been laboriously built up for years, should be devoted in those colonies for the purposes for which they were created. His hon. friend, the member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan), during the course of his speech, made it perfectly dear that these two and a half millions formed part and parcel of those balances. He would go further, and remind hon. members of another thing. The Transvaal Government some years ago obtained a guarantee from the British Government for a loan of five millions sterling. Part of that money was earmarked for new railway construction in the Transvaal. Hon. members who were members of the Convention knew that the Transvaal delegates made a condition in the Convention, which was immediately accepted, that so much of their five millions as had been earmarked or designated for public works, or railway construction, should be applied in the manner as laid down by the Transvaal.
Now, it might be asked what he proposed to do with that revenue balance of £2,161,000, because he hoped that hon. members would not get confused again about that £447,000 loan balance, because the money must be applied to the purposes for which it had been raised. Of the £2,161,000 revenue balance, that was, of course, at the disposal and under the control of that House. He had made the position clear when he had made the Budget statement, and when he had said that the policy of the Government was that when there was a revenue surplus it would be applied to a reduction of debt, and he recollected the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Phillips) cheering that expression of opinion, so that, he had made it perfectly clear what his intention was.
Do you mean that you are going to apply the whole of that £2,161,000 to the reduction of debt?
That was what I said. Most of that will be the un productive debt of the Cape Province in the past. (Laughter.)
How much have you got now?
£2,161,000. (Laughter.)
Have you got it?
Yes; I have told you half-a-dozen times. (Laughter.)
Floating debt?
was understood to say that he was sorry that there was such denseness on the other side of the House. If the hon. member would read the financial statement of the Cape Colony, he would see that they were all floating debts. Continuing, he said that having disposed of that myth of the “concealed balances,” and having shown that the money was available in the Treasury and at the disposal of Parliament, he would deal with the second serious criticism levelled against him. That was that the Estimates showed “gross extravagance” and were “most lavish,” to make use of the expression of the hon. member for Cape Town (Mr. Jagger), and that they showed “greater extravagance than any other colony under the Crown.” Here, also, it was curious how all the financial experts had supported each other—(laughter)—here also they had been unanimous in supporting each other and) attacking the Government. Well, any stranger listening to the speeches which had been made by his hon. friends, including the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) and the speeches of his hon. friends opposite, would have come to the conclusion that these Estimates did not represent a continuation of what had been going on in the four Provinces prior to May 51, but were Estimates which had been conceived and initiated by the Government on a grossly extravagant scale.
He had said in the course of his Budget statement—and it was curious how hon. members forgot these things—that instructions had been issued to the accounting officers that they were to frame the Estimates on the old lines, and not to provide for any new services, except where absolutely necessary. It had been impossible for the Government to say that these Estimates had to be out down. They could only take the four Provinces, and say: “Submit your estimates on your old lines; do not include any new services or increases of salary; make no provision for increased expenditure except one increase in salary—allow the ordinary annual increment of salary to be provided for.” That was the only provision they had made on those Estimates for an increase. His hon. friends had said: “Count all the men who are getting £1,000 a year or over”; but these men were precisely the same as had been receiving £1,000 a year or over up to May 51. (Hear, hear.) In the case of some officers, not exceeding five or six, who had been taken from Cape Town to Pretoria, there had been increases of salary, including the Auditor-General; but so careful had they been to safeguard the public Treasury that every increase had been made on the condition that the post was a temporary one, and that these men had been appointed in an acting capacity only, and if Parliament chose to abolish those posts, they had no claim. What more could the Treasury and he have done? Continuing, he said that the speeches of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) were always interesting, and always commanded— and justly—the respect of the House, because he supposed that no one had done more to put the finances of the Gape Colony on a sound and proper footing than his right hon. friend—(cheers)—but they also knew that he was never so happy as when he was a critic—(laughter)—and when he was a critic, spared neither friend nor foe. He was then in his element, and when he was in his element he became a “whole hogger,” if he (Mr. Hull) might be allowed to say so. (Laughter.) The other day his right hon. friend had not a good word to say of the Estimates; he had condemned them all round, and he said that there were too many Ministers, and that we had too many judges. These judges had all been inherited.
No.
They were all inherited. Then there was “too much Railway Board,” “too much extravagance,” “too much spent on other colonies ”—except the Cape Colony. (Laughter. Mr. Hull added that he frankly admitted It—he had admitted the other day that economies were possible, and economies would be effected in time; but surely hon. members ought not to be impatient—these things could not be done by merely pressing a button. (Laughter.) More over, the Government, rightly or wrongly, had deliberately decided, as a matter of policy, to ’bring about as little dislocation as possible, and said that if the Union machine got to work, it should get to work as smoothly as possible, and create as little discontent and friction as possible; and for that reason they had stayed their hands, and first saw that these departments co-ordinated and got ship-shape; when the Government could look around and see where any change was necessary. As to the Civil Servants, he knew that his right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) liked to have a tilt at them. He read an extract from a speech made by the right hon. gentleman in 1908 during the course of his Budget statement, that it was no use turning men adrifit if they wanted them back again … therefore, he had thought it wiser to stay his hand. The position in South Africa to-day (continued Mr. Hull) was precisely the same. Until they had had an opportunity of looking around, and until they knew that any of these men were redundant, they ought to stay their hand before they turned hundreds of men into the streets. (Cheers.)
In regard to the judges, the right hon. member said that there were too many judges, and that the people were over judged. The fact was that if there were one Province which was overstaffed with judges, it was the Province of the Cape. (Hear, hear.) It had been a question for many years, the reduction of the number of judges for the Cape. His right hon. friend (Mr. Merriman) had an opportunity for two or three years of dealing with this superabundance of judges, but apparently he found himself unable to cope with the question, but now he came and reproached the Government, and said that they had got too many judges, and he made a speech which must, of course, have a very bad effect upon people outside who did not know the circumstances. He made a speech which had gained a great deal of prejudice, but the fault, he (Mr. Hull) had to find with the right hon. gentleman was that the Government, inherited this large staff of Civil Servants; they inherited these judges, and they inherited this Railway Board, and, therefore, he thought it was grossly unfair on the part of his right hon. friend to Jay those things at the door of the Government. The only concrete case of extravagance which had been placed before the House was in regard to Ministers’ salaries. He did not want to discuss that matter. It was a very delicate subject, but he entirely endorsed what was said by the Minister for the Interior, and what was also said by the member for Fordsburg. He (Mr. Hull) was personally interested in a thing of this kind, and he did not want to say anything more about it. Then there was a third head of charges, under which it was said that his revenue estimates were framed on too extravagant a scale. Hon. members opposite thought that the revenue he had budgetted for would not be realised. Well, no man could say whether the revenue would be realised or not. All he could say was that he hoped it would be realised. It was a curious thing that he had had experience in budgetting for revenue in the Transvaal, and this was the first time his hon. friends who came from the Transvaal had charged him with being too optimistic. The charge brought against him in the Transvaal had been that he was too pessimistic. They had always been correct. He had got some statements which rather went to show that his revenue estimates would be exceeded, rather than that there would fee a shortfall. Hon. members would agree that one of the best barometers for judging revenue was the barometer supplied by Customs. (VOICES: “No.”) The Customs collections up to November 30 last amounted to £2,283,000. Those were the collections for six months. If they took the proportion of the Estimates for six months they would find that the amount worked out at £2,255,000, thus showing an ascertained increase of £28,000 over the Estimates for the six months. It was rather curious to find that his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Walton) should suddenly become a pessimist. He had looked through the hon. member’s Estimate of Revenue for the period during which he was Treasurer in the Cape, and he found that in 1904-05 the hon. member over-estimated his revenue by nearly £2,000,000—(Government cheers)— £1,993,000—in 1905-06 by £648,000, in 1906 07 by £1,210,000—(“Oh”)—and in 1907-08 by £1,017,000. It was rather curious that the hon. member should now come and play the part of the pessimist.
Dealing with what he described as some minor points, Mr. Hull went on to say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, in referring to the duties and functions of the Controller and Auditor-General, showed, he was going to say, a complete ignorance of what the functions of that official were. He said that when he saw the regulations that were issued for the guidance of the Controller and Auditor General, he was surprised, and that he had never seen such regulations in his life. Well he might tell them that those regulations were issued after they had, been approved of by the Controller and Auditor-General. Then the hon. member went on to say that none of the Union accounts had been audited by the Controller and Auditor-General since Mary 31. He could assure the hon. (member that the accounts had been audited since May 31 in the ordinary course, exactly the same way as they had been audited prior to May 31. Then, in regard to the financial year, it seemed to him that there was a fair chance of this question being settled to the satisfaction of hon. members on both sides of the House. In view of what had fatten from his hon. friend the Minister for the Interior, it would seem as if Parliament would in future meet some time in January. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. member for Pretoria East, that it would be a wise thing to consider the interests of parents and children, and if their interests were there, he saw no reason why Parliament should not meet towards the end of January, when the long vacation was over, and parents could come down to their Parliamentary duties. If some such alteration were made, the whole question of the financial year would be at an end. He thought he ought to say something in regard to this matter. When the question of the financial year was being discussed in Pretoria, he was one of those who thought that the financial year ought to end with the calendar year—(hear, hear)—but others thought differently. After consulting the Controller and Auditor-General, the Government canoe to the conclusion that the best period to adopt for the financial year was the period ending March 31, but his right hon. friend asked him to see the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and to put the case before him. He did so, and the Leader of the Opposition intimated to him that he and his friends saw no objection to the financial year ending on March 31. One of the strongest criticisms made against him came from the hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) in regard to the form of the Estimates. He (Mr. Hull) stated in the course of his Budget speech that there were two comparative tables given in the Estimates, but he was careful to say that he did not think the figures could be depended upon. He pointed out the difficulty of getting the true comparative figures for the preceding ten months. Well, it would appear that he made a great mistake. His anxiety was to give hon. members as much information as he possibly could. If he had brought no figures, the financial experts would have howled at him. Because he brought the figures they cursed him also. (Laughter.) Having made up their mind that these comparative figures were not worth the paper they were written on—
You told us so.
The hon. member’s understudy said so.
You said they were defective.
I pointed out that they were not to be relied upon too much.
Having said that the hon. members on both sides of the House having come to the conclusion that they were worthless, they ought to have abandoned those comparisons. But one moment they abandoned them, and the next moment they used them for basing arguments upon. Is that fair? Continuing, Mr. Hull said he now came to the question of interest raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, If the hon. member were serious in his assertion that provision ought to have been made for ten-twelfths of the year’s interest, it showed that the hon. member had very little knowledge of the method in which Government accounts were kept.
Of the way you keep them I have no knowledge.
Supposing I had adopted his plan, the position would have been that on March 31, when the financial year ends, I would not have drawn this money, as the interest is payable only in May. Consequently the vote would have lapsed. Continuing, Mr. Hull said some of the critics had made a great point of the fact that no effort had been made by Government to bring about uniformity of taxation. Anomalies existed right through the Union, and it would take a great many years before they were done away with. If the Government had reduced the taxation to the level desired by some hon. members the Treasury would put its shutters up.
You should cut your expenditure down.
said the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had criticised the Public Service Commission, but if he had made inquiries he would have found that the Commission was not such a bad one as he tried to make out. The chairman of the Commission had had along Government record in Natal, another member had for years been Treasurer of the Orange River Colony, and the third member had exceptional attainments and abilities gained in the Cape. Then the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) had stated that some of the colonies, bursting with wealth, had rushed gaily into the market. That was a very unfair statement. It was definitely settled at the Convention that the Orange River Colony and Natal should borrow certain sums, and that in order to get the money as cheaply as possible the Transvaal should finance them. Then he understood the hon. member to say that the railway accruals appeared twice. They appeared only once in the accounts.
Those were the earnings; they might not be received until long after.
said he thought one of the most unfortunate speeches was that made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger). It was not only mischievous, but misleading. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. member told the Cape members that the money of the Cape was being spent in the Transvaal on public buildings. That was as mischievous as it was absolutely untrue. One would imagine that it was the Cape, and not the Transvaal, that brought financial strength to the Union. If all the money raised in the Transvaal was spent in that Province there would be absolutely not a “bob” left to spend in the Cape. The hon. member in his anxiety to besmirch the Transvaal had referred to certain breaches of the Jaw on the part of the late Transvaal Government. The hon. member deliberately read portions of the Transvaal Auditor-General’s report for the purpose of besmirching the late Transvaal Government.
What nonsense.
If the hon. member had made investigations he would have found that the Public Accounts Committee of the Transvaal—of which committee I was not a member—examined into all the charges made by the Auditor-General, and set aside the whole of the complaints.
I rise to a point of order. To show how inaccurate the hon. member is, I may say that, as a matter of fact, these points have never been referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
What is the point of order?
An explanation.
An explanation is not a point of order. (Laughter.)
Then the hon. member said that I as Treasurer of the late Transvaal Government, had issued from the Exchequer sums amounting to £69,000.
Without the Governor’s authority.
These matters were investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, which decided that there was nothing in the action of the Treasurer to take exception to. The hon. member went further. I will not say he deliberately misread the report, but from his speech he inferred that the late Government illegally had made a certain purchase of shares in the National Bank.
Continuing, Mr. Hull said that if his hon. friend had been sincere, and had had no desire to besmirch the Transvaal, he could have got at the facts of the case by a simple inquiry. He read, and misread, a report that the Government of the Transvaal had used public money for the purchase of—
Nothing of the kind.
said that he was merely reminding the House of what the hon. member had said. What was the point of that reference, because he remembered him calling the (attention of his hon. friend the Minister of Justice to “another illegality.” One did not wish to go into these matters but statements of the kind coming from such a responsible member as his hon. friend tended to create a prejudice outside which should not be created. What were the facts? Long before the war, long years ago, the old Transvaal Government assisted in the establishment of a National Bank in the Transvaal Well, if his hon. friend knew better, why did he quote it? Well, the old Republican Government helped in the establishment by subscribing for 13,000 shares at par, or, in other words, paying a sum of £130,000. These were held by the old Transvaal Government, subsequently by the Crown Colony Government, and later on by the Responsible Government of the Transvaal, and these shares were now held by the Union. (Hear, hear.)
interjected a remark.
But he says he knew better, and, knowing better, he quotes this report. (Hear, hear.) I don’t want to labour this thing, but—
I shall (have to refer to it again.
It is distasteful to me, but I wonder what he would say if I should pry into the past history of the Gape. (Hear, hear.) Does he think that it would serve any good purpose? Continuing, he said he just wanted to say a word or two with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville. It had been described as the speech of the Prince. (Laughter.) There were only two points to which he wished to refer, one was the new doctrine he enunciated. He (the hon. member for Yeoville) said that when they borrowed they ought not to borrow at the lowest rate of interest. Well, he wondered what his hon. friend would say if he borrowed money it 3½ per cent., when he could have got the money at 3 per cent. (Laughter.) The other point was one an which he could heartily congratulate his hon. friend, and that was his conversion on the Chinese question. His hon. friend had said they would not have them back.
Not long ago his hon. friend had foreshadowed disaster, death, and doom if the Chinese did not stay, but he was glad to say that these prophecies had not come to pass. His hon. friend had also expounded a new doctrine with regard to their imports and exports, but when he was pulled up for calculating on a wrong basis, he slid away all at once to another point. And now he came to what in many respects he regarded—and he thought it ought to be so regarded—as the most serious contribution to the debate that had taken place. He referred to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Jeppes, and, speaking for himself, he was not sorry that the amendment had been moved, because moving the amendment gave an opportunity of referring to a matter which was to-day, he supposed, almost a public scandal in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) He would not stop to inquire who should pay compensation, or who should be the people to help to ameliorate this unfortunate state of affairs, but he wanted to say something which he was able to say with the greatest pleasure. His hon. friend the Minister for the Interior was at present engaged upon the preparation of a law which would deal with the matter of compensation for miners’ phthisis. It was proposed under that law, which it was hoped to pass during the present session, to make provision for compensation to be paid to men who suffered from the disease.
At present?
Yes, at present. Continuing, he said that how this compensation was to be paid could be dealt with when the measure came before the House. He only wanted to say a word with regard to the speech of his hon. friend the member for Fordsburg. He twitted him (Mr. Hull) for the use of the word equilibrium. He (Mr. Hull) did not use it in the strict sense, and he thought that all hon. members in that House knew what he meant. He thought he showed a contemplated deficit on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, and that he hoped to bring about an equilibrium by helping himself to about a quarter of a million of the railway funds, and imposing a tax on profits. What he should have said was that he proposed to make good the deficit.
And avoid insolvency.
Avoid insolvency in the way I have indicated. Continuing, he said that there were two remarks which he wished to repeat. He wanted to assure the House that he had no desire or intention to conceal any information from the House. If he failed to make the position clear the other day, it was not because of any deliberate intention. There was another thing he wished to say for the benefit of the hon. member for Cape Town, that if they went on contrasting what was spent in one Province with the expenditure in another, the Government might one day be called upon to keep separate accounts for the Provinces to show what each was costing, and what each contributed to the Union. If that state of affairs were realised it would be most unfortunate.
expressed pleasure at the remarks that had fallen from the Hon. the Minister of Finance with regard to miners’ phthisis, and stated that he was authorised to withdraw the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes.
The motion was agreed to, the House to go into committee on the foil-lowing day.
Financial position of the South African Railways and Harbours on 30th May, 1910; also the revenue and expenditure from 51-st May to 31st August, 1910.
SECOND READING.
moved the second reading of the Cape Province Cattle Cleansing Bill. He referred to the last Act passed by the Cape Parliament, and said that there were unfortunately on the Border as well as elsewhere, unscrupulous persons who managed to evade the provision of that law, the chief weakness of which was that the owners of cattle had only to produce a certificate to the effect that his cattle had been cleansed. His Bill would be more stringent than the one at present in force in the Cape. The operation of the Bill would be optional. The matter was a most important one, and they had just heard of another outbreak of the disease. It would be correct to say that it was now at their very doors. They must not forget the protection which the rest of the Province was going to get from the districts on the Border fighting for all they were worth against the disease. (Hear, hear.)
said that he might say at once that the Government had no objection to accepting the principles of that Bill, which was one which was very restricted in character, and could only apply to the Cape Province, and then only to a small area, and not without the consent of the local Divisional Councils. He thought it would be wise to put a provision in the Bill to make it applicable to a part of a district, so that part of a district could be under the new Act and the rest of the district under the old Act. If they took the district of Uitenhage, for example, one part of it was tick-infested, and wanted the Act, and the other part, the Karoo part, was not, and did not want the Act. Unfortunately the majority of the whole district did not want the Act. He hoped that that matter would be dealt with in committee, †Mr. G. H. MAASDORP (Graaff-Reinet) said the House would do well by passing this very moderate Bill. If it had contained the principle of compulsion he would have opposed it. Compulsion in matters of that description always failed, but an optional Bill, such as the one before the House, was of great educative value, and be was glad that the Government had accepted it. The tick should he fought by all the means in their power. In the Midlands it did more harm to sheep and goats than to cattle.
said it was only right that some sort of legislation Should be introduced in order to assist in preventing the spread of East Coast fever. At the same time, he would not have voted for the second reading if it had not been the intention to introduce an amendment in committee, rendering it possible to make the Bill applicable to parts of districts:
said that the hon. member for Piquetberg might set his mind at rest, because the Bill did not compel people to adopt any sort of remedy unless the Divisional Council asked for it to be enforced. East Cast fever had got to within twenty miles of the Kei River, and the question presented itself whether it would not be wise to construct a line of defence along that river. Dipping was an excellent means of fighting the tick, but he had no wish to belittle fencing as a way of combating the disease. He would like to know what the policy of the Government was with regard to compulsory dipping in the Transkei, whether the slaughtering of cattle had been abandoned, and to what extent they were going to assist farmers in erecting fences.
said that his objection to the Bill was that it did not go far enough. He sketched what had happened in Natal after the outbreak of East Coast fever and the establishment of dipping tanks on the public reads. He referred to the opposition which was shown at that time to compulsory dipping. He urged that hon. members should put all the strength they could in the hands of the Government to encourage dipping throughout South Africa. He prophesied that the time was not far distant when farmers throughout South Africa would welcome dipping. He thought the Bill should be made applicable to the whole of the Cape Province.
said that he welcomed the Bill, and his only regret was that the hon. member who had brought it in did not go a step further. In his constituency the farmers were very keen on compulsory dipping. He thought it was quite possible to stop the march of the little insect that caused East Coast fever from the east to the west by systematic dipping along the border. Sir Bisset also alluded to the beneficial effect which dipping had even on cattle which were not tick-infested. He pointed out that the present Bill was to same extent inconsistent with the Act passed by the Cape House of Assembly last year, Act No. 43. He hoped that when they went into committee his hon. friend would consent to some amendments that would clear away these inconsistencies.
said the Act did not meet the case that if a majority of the farms were outside a tick-infested area there would be very little chance of a Divisional Council adopting compulsory dipping.
said that he was not in favour of making the dipping of cattle in or near infected areas optional. Permissive legislation had never done any good, and the obligation should be left in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture instead of in those of the Divisional Council. He was opposed to the compulsory dipping of sheep and goats in healthy areas, but wherever dipping was really necessary the law should compel it, and an amendment to that effect ought to be introduced.
The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. G. BLAINE (Border), seconded by Mr. J. G. KING (Griqualand),
It was set down for committee stage on Wednesday next.
moved that the House go into committee on the first report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands.
complained that there was very little information given in the report. The Gape method should be followed.
said the Cape procedure was followed.
The motion was agreed to.
moved: This committee recommends the following grants and lease of land, viz.: (1) Grant, for school purposes, at Bodiam, Peddie. (2) Grant, for church purposes, at Douglas. (3) Grant, for church purposes, at Berlin, King William’s Town. (4) Grant, for church purposes, at Kuruman. (5) Grant of garden lot, Knapp’s Hope Mission Station, King William’s Town. (6) Transfer, for church purposes, at Griquatown. (7) Grant, for church purposes, at Campbell.(8) Grant, for church purposes, at Hlobo, Nqamakwe. (9) Grant, for church and school purposes, at Zangokwe, Queen’s Town. (10) Grant, for parsonage, at Kenhardt. (11) Grant, for trading site, at Mhlahlane, Nqamakwe. (12) Grant, for public cemetery, at Bizana. (13) Grants, for church and school purposes, at Ludan dolo and Esinqumeni, Idutywa. (14) Grant, for church and school purposes, at Ceguana. (15) Grant, for public cemetery, at Nquamakwe. (16) Sales, near King’s dross Township, King William’s Town. (17) Grant, for church purposes, on farm Uitkyik, Wodehouse.(18) Grant, for public cemetery, at Hoedjes Bay, Malmesbury. (19) Grant, as fishing site, at Gericke Point, George. (20) Grant, for public library, at Port St. John’s. (21) Leases, to squatters, on Middelvlei, dale don. (22) Grant, for agricultural show ground, at Worcester.
Agreed to.
reported that the Committee had agreed to certain resolutions, and asked leave to bring up the report to-morrow.
Agreed to.
On Clause 10,
moved that the word “wilful” be inserted before the word “disobedience” in sub-section 1.
Agreed to.
moved the following clause 112: “(1) A member shall not in or before Parliament or any committee vote upon or take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. (2) Any member who acts in contravention of this section may be adjudged guilty of a contempt of Parliament by the House of which he is a member, and shall be liable to the penalties provided in this Act for such contempt. (5) For the purposes of this section a member shall be deemed to have a direct pecuniary interest in any contract or bargain from which any pecuniary interest or benefit is or may be derived by him or by any company of (which he is a director or under which he holds any office or employment, but the provisions of this section shall not apply to any vote or discussion concerning any remuneration or allowance to be received by members in their capacity as such, or to any interest which a member may have in any matter in common with the public generally, or with any class or section thereof.”
Business was suspended at 6 p.m.
Business was resumed at 8 p.m.
said he wished to explain that the point raised in the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) was one which should be dealt with in the Standing Rules and Orders of the House. He referred to clause 124 of the Standing Rules and Orders, and clause 142 of the Manual of Procedure of the British House of Commons, and said he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Duncan) would be satisfied if his amendment were referred to and considered by the Standing Rules and Orders Committee.
said that there was a strong consensus of opinion on both sides of the House that either in this Bill, or in the Standing Rules and Orders they should have a clause of the kind proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan). Did he understand that his hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (General Smuts), who was a member of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, would introduce a clause of this character?
I shall move this clause.
I am quite satisfied with the assurance of the Minister of the Interior, and shall withdraw my amendment.
The amendment was withdrawn.
On section 28,
said that the clause sought to protect the printer or publisher of any extracts from a report or minute or votes or proceedings of Parliament from a verdict being given against him, by ordering that, a verdict should be entered for the defendant; but it did not protect such person in the case of an impecunious individual proceeding against him, and causing his being mulcted in costs which the plaintiff would be unable to pay. He thought provision should be made to prevent cases of this sort being brought into court at all this risk to the printer.
said the object of the clause was to give a limited privilege in respect of the publication of extracts from Parliamentary reports. Parliamentary reports, if officially published under the authority of the House, were fully privileged, and no bona fides would have to be proved in respect of such official reports; but if any newspaper made extracts, bona fides must be proved. It might be that extracts would be published which ignored the context, misrepresented the facts, and so suppressed the truth. In such a case bona fides would not be inferred, but if a man published a true condensation of the proceedings of Parliament, his bona fides would be inferred by the Court.
said his point was that protection should be afforded to printers against having to pay the costs if they were brought into court by a person who would be unable to pay costs.
said that that was the case in regard to every kind of litigation, and no one had yet been able to devise a means by which it could be avoided.
The Bill was reported with one amendment, and the amendment was set down for consideration on Friday.
On the order to go into committee,
asked whether the Minister could not keep the Bill over until after the recess.
asked whether they could not take the committee stage of the Bill now, and defer the further stages and amendments, so that hon. members could consult those interested.
I may say that we have adjourned this for a considerable time now, and my inclination is rather to go on. (Hear, hear.) If members want to get into touch with their constituents in the country, I have no feeling against postponing it. Perhaps it will be a good thing not to postpone it, provided hon. members were to explain to the country, but I must say that some of the amendments I have seen moved in different parts of the country I cannot accept. I think some people seem to drive these protective measures too far. (Hear, hear.) You can’t put a fence around yourselves like that, and you will only encourage people to break the law and to export. Perhaps there is something in what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Smartt) has said—let us go into committee and see what the amendments are, and if there are great differences of opinion we can report progress and ask leave to sit again. If not, we can go on with the Bill.
said that he had many amendments which he would like to move, and he would like to know what the feeling of the country was. The Bill should be postponed until after the recess.
The question was put whether the House should go into committee.
declared that the Noes had it.
moved the adjournment of the debate.
seconded.
This was agreed to.
Adjourned till when?
Wednesday, 21st. inst.
moved that the petition from D. Magiedt and 59 others, inhabitants in the division of Kenhardt, in opposition to the proposed lease or sale of the farm Leeuwkop, presented to the House on the 29th ult., be referred to the Government for inquiry and report.
seconded.
This was agreed to.
at 8.25, moved the adjournment of the House.
seconded.
hoped that the Minister would not press it.
I do not see why we should adjourn at such an early hour. Hon. members have come here, and there is a great deal on the paper; why cannot we deal with the notices of motion now and be done with it? (Cheers.)
The motion “That the House do now adjourn” was put, the Speaker declaring that the “Ayes” had it.
A division was called for, but was withdrawn.
withdrew his motion.
moved that the petition from S. J. de Jager and three others, styling themselves the Council of the Bar Society of the Orange Free State, and praying for the repeal of licences payable by barristers to the House on the 29th ultimo, be referred to the Government for inquiry and report.
seconded.
This was agreed to.
moved for a return showing: (1) All new lines of railway authorised by the respective Parliaments of the different colonies now forming Provinces of the Union; (2) the various Acts of Parliament by which the lines of railway in question are authorised; (3) the financial provision, if any, made for the construction of every such line of railway; (4) which of the said lines are now in course of construction; and (5) the reasons why those lines not now being constructed are left in abeyance.
seconded.
on behalf of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, offered no opposition to the motion, saying that the return would take a little time to prepare.
The motion was agreed to.
moved for a return showing: (1) The names of railway officials on the Northern Line from De Aar to Vryburg who have been fined or punished since the appointment of Mr. More as Traffic Manager, with the masons for such penalty or fine; (2) the names of the employees who have been dismissed from the service by the Traffic Manager, with the reasons for such dismissal; and (5) the names of railway officials who have been fined, punished, or dismissed during the twelve months from July 1 to May 31, 1909, before the appointment of the present Traffic Manager.
seconded.
Agreed to.
moved that the petition from the Orange Free State Law Society, praying for the repeal of those provisions of Ordinance No. 10 of 1903 (Orange Free State), imposing licence fees upon the members of that society, presented to the House on the 30th ultimo, be referred to the Government for inquiry and report.
seconded.
Agreed to.
moved that the Government be requested to consider the advisability of the appointment of a Minister of the Crown with the portfolio of Public Health. He referred to the question which he addressed to the Minister of the Interior on this subject a few weeks ago, and the reply which he then received, to the effect that the Department of Public Health was adequately represented by the Minister. He also spoke of the deputation from the Medical Congress, which subsequently waited upon the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior on this and another subject. He stated that they were given the usual stereotyped reply that the matter would receive consideration at the hands of the Government. In view of what the Minister of the Interior told him that this was a question which should be discussed on the floor of the House, he thought it well that the discussion should now take place. The Department of Public Health was not adequately represented by the Minister of the Interior; public health never had been adequately represented by that Department and it never would be adequately represented by that Department as at present constituted. Dr. MacNeillie described the duties which should appertain to the Department of Public Health, and the duties which had been allocated to the office of the Minister of the Interior. The mere recital of the duties of the Public Health Department, coupled with the duties allocated to the Minister who at present looked after public health was, he said, a sufficient condemnation of the statement made by him that the Department of Public Health was adequately represented by the Minister of the Interior. In Pretoria during Crown Colony Government they had a medical officer who, in virtue of his appointment, had a seat in the Legislative Council. When Responsible Government came in, that medical officer was retrenched, and he Department of Public Health came under that of the Colonial Secretary. He proposed to take the duties of the Public Health Department seriatim, and in what he had to say he should refer mostly to the Transvaal. There was the presence of syphilis. This disease was spreading in an alarming degree. Fifty per cent. of the natives in some parts of the Waterberg district were suffering from this loathsome disease. The average taken all over the district amounted to 25 per cent. of the natives. This was really a national question, and one that should be taken in hand by the Union Government at once. They also had this disease prevalent in Bechuanaland. There was no subject of greater importance than miners’ phthisis, which took an enormous toll of human life. This was practically a preventible disease—(hear, hear)—and if we had had a proper Department of Public Health it would long ere this have seen that proper precautions were adopted against it. Then there was tuberculosis, which could be treated only in a national way. It was no use the different Provinces adopting different regulations. The only way to grapple with the disease was by means of a central authority. He asked the Minister if the time was not ripe for framing legislation with regard to public health. The health of the country was far more important than the solemnisation of marriages. Referring to hospitals, he went on to deal with the system of grants as it existed in the Transvaal at the present time, and thought that the State should have direct control over the hospitals. He touched on Pietersburg Hospital to illustrate what he meant, and said that the treatment of patients should be a direct charge on the State. Medical research should also come within the scope of a Department of Public Health, and a great deal could be done in this direction. Turning to leper asylums, the speaker referred to the fact that in 1904 a law was passed in the Transvaal which made it necessary that the superintendent of the leper asylum in that Province should be a medical man. When Responsible Government came about, however, a measure was passed making it possible for a Layman to act as superintendent. The argument which was advanced in favour of the appointment of a layman was that there should be efficient administration. To his mind, however, medical treatment should not be subservient to administration. Administration should be subservient to medical treatment. Referring to centralisation, he said that in matters of public health local authorities should only act under provisions framed by the central authority. In matters of public health they could not have the health of one part of the country affected without it having a bearing upon the country at large. He did not say that one Minister should hold the portfolio of public health alone, but they should have a Minister who would be responsible to the House for all matters regarding public health, and that he should have under him a permanent head, a man of undoubted ability, a man who would have the confidence of the people of the country, a man who at all times would have free access to the Ministry, and not as they had at the present time, a man with no power to act, a man who could not even confer with the assistant of, say, the Minister of the Interior, or with a first or second clerk, a man utterly inadequate to carry out the work of this great department, or even property to interpret the recommendations that a medical officer might make. In his mind the Minister of Education should be the Minister of Public Health, because there was a great parallel between education and public health. Just as they had, or expected to have, a national system of education, so they ought to have a national system in regard to public health. In his view the health of the people was as potent a factor in the progress and well being of the country as education was. They could not give children equal opportunity in a better way than by giving them sound health. (Hear, hear )
seconded.
moved, as an amendment, to omit all words after “advisability of,” for the purpose of adding the following words: “Establishing a Department of Public Health under the control of a medical officer of health who shall be responsible to the Minister of the Interior.” The hon. member said that health was, perhaps, the most important human concern on this side of the grave, and it was questionable whether enough was being done—done in the right way in the interests of hygiene. Medical opinions were often undervalued because doctors some times disagreed, but when medical men pleaded for a Department of Public Health, they were not actuated by a selfish motive, at any rate, because its activities were likely to decrease the number of their patients. It was simply a matter of the public interest. Many patients suffering from tuberculosis arrived at the parts from foreign countries. They would find work at the coast until there was a recrudescence of disquieting symptoms. The hospitals would then take care of them for a certain period, but after a while the resident physicians would order them to Beaufort West, with its magnificent climate. They would put up at a local hotel, and walk about freely until they were so emaciated as to resemble a bag of bones; eventually they would get quite helpless. Such people infected everything with which they came into contact, and because of the lack of preventive measures their fellow-men lived in constant danger. After a patient’s death his clothes would be bought by a native, and many native families were now consumptive. If hon. members would only realise that everything that had been touched by a patient of that description should be disinfected, they would understand the importance of the matter. Malaria was carried by a mosquito. It was said that only one kind of mosquito was capable of carrying the disease, but he was not so sure about that. Sleeping-sickness, too, was carried by winged insects, and Government should take active steps against the propagation of scourges of this nature. Sleeping-sickness patients had recently been travelling by train, thus constituting a danger to the public. In Johannesburg, a kind of “remedy” containing the germs of syphilis was sold. Natives bought that, and took the disease all over the country. Leprosy and similar dangerous diseases should cause the public to be on their guard, and supplied an argument for his amendment. People often referred to the glorious future of South Africa, but could they cheerfully face the future unless war was declared against those imminent dangers? Stringent measures regarding disinfection, etc., would have to be taken, and he considered a Department of Public Health the only proper safeguard:.
seconded.
said that there was one thing that was exercising the medical profession in South Africa to-day, and that was the unsatisfactory condition of the control of health matters in the Union. (Hear, hear.) There was not one member of the profession who did not realise the ability, and desire to assist South Africa in health matters of the Minister of the Interior. This matter was brought forward with a view of having some expert in the control of health matters. The medical profession were quite disinterested in moving on this subject. In a country like this—a young country, and a country where, perhaps, education was not so advanced as in most modern countries—there was more need of medical education and medical control than there was in a modernised, more educated, and less sparsely populated country. What was the position to-day? They had the Minister of the Interior in charge of the public health. He had four medical officers in the various Provinces. To-day those medical officers had been put down a grave. In the Cape, for instance, the chief clerk of the office was put in charge of that office, directly responsible to the Minister, and the medical officer to-day was purely an advisory officer to give an opinion when he was asked. That the House would own, in dealing with an important matter like public health, was a very serious thing for South Africa as a whole. He was not prepared to go as far as the hon. member for Boksburg. He felt that the time would come when a portfolio of public health would be established, but he felt that it was too much to expect from South Africa at present. He should feel inclined to support the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West. He felt that if the Minister of the Interior would accept that, he would be doing justice to the public health of South Africa as a whole, and would certainly be doing away with a great deal of the anxiety of the medical profession to-day. The profession felt that there should be at the head of the department a medical man, who would be directly responsible to the Minister of the Interior. It was their duty as legislators to see that the rising generation was a strong and healthy one. In the Cape Peninsula there were schools which were overcrowded and unhealthy. In conclusion, he hoped that the Minister of the Interior would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West.
said that: as a layman who had a little municipal experience, he could say that the Health Department of the Cape had not made for efficiency. In saying that, he did not cast any reflections on the officers of the department, for it was the system that was at fault. The officers had to deal with both local government and health matters, and the consequence was that, in the stress of business, health matters had to take a back seat. It seemed to have been nobody’s particular business to take up large matters affecting the public health of the whole of South Africa. During recent years the scourge of tuberculosis had invaded the country. In the past Parliament had neglected health matters, and whole days were spent in the House discussing scab and ticks, and large sums of money were voted for the combating of animal diseases: when it came to a scourge which was decimating not merely hundreds but thousands of people, it was a case of speaking to empty benches in the old Cape Parliament, and not seeing a single sixpence on the Estimates for the purpose of dealing with the disease. (Hear, hear.) During the three years, 1903-4-5, the death-rate from consumption in the Cape Colony was 4.34 per 1,000.
Have you statistics as to where these people were born?
No, I cannot give you those figures. Continuing, the speaker referred to the way in which the scourge was increasing.
Where do these men come from?
said he knew that a number came from over the sea. He did not dispute that. He was merely basing his figures upon the number of persons who had died in the Cape Colony, and when it came to 4.34 per 1,000 of the population, then it was a serious matter. Let them take Scotland, with a death-rate of 1.4 per 1,000, London with a death-rate of 2.13, and New York with a rate of 2.57. What he wanted to bring home to the Minister was that under the system which prevailed in this country in the past, public health questions like these had been neglected; it seemed to have been nobody’s business to have looked after these matters. Agitation had gone on, public opinion had been played on, and it always led to nothing but an expression of sympathy. If a responsible department were organised in this country, and a Minister placed in charge, he would be able to take into consideration these big questions of public health, and bring them to the notice of the Government. In the past these questions had been shelved, and the time had come for some definite action to be taken. He hoped that the Minister would give this matter earnest consideration, and organise a department, so that these matters might be dealt with more adequately in the future than had been the case in the past. (Hear, hear.)
honed that the Minister of the Interior would not treat this motion as a vote of no confidence, because, while his administration had by no means met with universal approval, they recognised that he was actuated by the best of motives and the best of intentions. And, further, there was no desire on the part of hon. members on his (the speaker’s) side of the House to take public health matters away from the department of the Minister of the Interior. At the same time they wanted to emphasise in the strongest possible terms, and to urge upon the Government the necessity of organising a Department of Public Health in a proper fashion. The Duke of Connaught had said that the health of the population had come to be regarded as one of the first cares of the State. It was time that these matters were taken over by a responsible Minister instead of being delegated to a clerk in the office of the Minister of the Interior Even in Great Britain they had gone in for general centralisation in regard to matters of public health. He was sorry, however, that this important subject had not excited greater interest among hon. members of that House.
said that this was no new idea. It was a practical proposal, and he was surprised to see none of the members of the Labour party present that evening to give support to the motion. The great problem of human health had been rather lightly treated of late years, and he hoped that now that the question had been revived something practical would be done, and that without delay.
said it was useless to talk of building up a nation when no steps were taken to ensure that a strong and healthy nation was built up. For instance, there was nothing at present to guard any householder from talking into his house a coloured or native servant suffering from a dangerous contagious disease. Then healthy persons were infected through travelling with consumptives in trains, and mingling with them in other public places. The time had come when the public health administration should be put on a sound basis, and he hoped the amendment would be carried. He was not sure that the Minister realised the seriousness of the danger, but in any case that hon. gentleman had quite enough to do as it was, and he supported the amendment.
said he question demanded the greatest consideration. While he was a member of the Johannesburg Council, plague appeared there, and the Councillors were in a hopeless quandary as to what to do. They sent to Pretoria for a medical officer, and he organised matters so that in a short time they were rid of the plague. Laymen were useless in an emergency such as that. He was disappointed that they had not had an expression of the views of the Government on such an important matter.
said that he wished to induce the Minister to think seriously of that matter. He thought the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Mr. Baxter), had gone a bit too far, but he associated himself with the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat), that it was not necessary to have a Minister of Public Health, but that they wanted a Director of Public Health in the Union, an officer of the same standing as the Superintendent-General or the Director of Education. They did not want an officer who was responsible to some second or third-class clerk in the office of the Minister, but a gentleman of intelligence and experience, who would be responsible only to the Minister, and would almost have the same rank as the Minister. They did insist that these health matters should receive the attention from the Cabinet which they deserved, and which they (hon. members) thought it their duty, not as medical men, but as legislators, to bring as permanently before the House as they could. (Hear, hear.) Diseases which medical men wished to cope with were making great headway in the country, and something more should be done than was being done. He would like to associate himself entirely with what had fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Queen’s Town. There seemed to be a general consensus of opinion among those who were particularly able to sneak on these matters that there should be, in the administration of this country, someone who could speak with authority on this matter of public health. He supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beaufort West.
said that he had been waiting to see whether the Minister of the Interior would have the courtesy to say a few words in answer to the speeches which had been made by the hon. members for Boksburg, (Beaufort West, etc. He felt that the time of the House was being needlessly taken up by this debate, simply because when important measures were brought before the House Ministers did not choose to give them some leading and some guidance. The proposal would not cause the expense that some hon. members seemed to think. The House expected and desired that at the elbow of the Minister there should be the best scientific authority available. He was not at all in favour of having professional men as administrators, but of their being placed in responsible positions in which they would be able to devote the whole of their time to technical subjects, while the Ministers would be compelled practically to take their advice on matters of public importance, and if they departed from that advice the Ministers would do so on their own responsibility. (Cheers.) He hoped that the Minister of the Interior would promise to appoint a Medical Officer of Health for the Union, nod that in future as much time and attention would be devoted to fighting human complaints as in the past had been devoted to the suppression of animal diseases. (Cheers.)
said he would draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact that in the late Natal Assembly the opinion was expressed that under Union something might be done in this direction.
said he would like to say a few words after the vehement oration of his hon. friend. His silence did not mean that he wished to behave discourteously to members of the medical profession or any other section in the House. He would have thought that the motion would speak for itself; it was not the way of the Government to treat lightly a motion that had to do with a new portfolio or a new department of State. Motions of that sort had the serious attention of the Government. He had no objection to the motion or the amendment, or both.
What are you going to do?
said the hon. member was wrong when he said that he was waiting to hear the opinion of the House. Hon. members from the Transvaal knew that he held strong opinion is on this subject. With regard to the motion, be thought that the country was oppressed by too many portfolios. The other day it was suggested that there should be a Portfolio of Labour, and that had been carried he would have had a fourth; if this motion was carried it would have meant a fifth. He would ask his hon. friend to mention one part of the British Empire where there was a Portfolio of Public Health.
New Zealand.
said that it would have been farcical if he had had) to deal with five portfolios, and he could assure them that such could not possibly add to the efficiency of the (public service. He was always prepared to consider these questions, but if they wanted his personal opinion he thought a Portfolio of Public Health would be out of the question. As to the amendment which proposed the establishment not of a portfolio, but of a Department of Public Health, it had been stated that such a department would remedy the present state of affairs in the Cape Province, but he wished to point out that they had had a department here under a proper medical expert, and, nevertheless, all the evils and diseases that had been mentioned had grown and flourished. Therefore, he did not think that the creation of a Department of Health under a medical expert would necessarily lead to the remedy of the present state of affairs. The subject had always been a difficult one, and would continue to be a difficult one. It was especially difficult, for the reason, as hon. members knew, that under the Constitution all matters dealing with local institutions were relegated to the Provincial Councils, and to a very large extent public health was dealt with by local authorities, not only in this Province, but in the other Provinces in South Africa. They had in the Gape Province 75 municipalities, he believed, dealing with health within their respective areas, and so it was all over South Africa. He, as Minister, was not responsible: the Administrators were responsible. Some of the Administrators had already asked to have a proper equipment of machinery for public health. He mentioned that to show that it was no use talking glibly on public health. They should consider all the surrounding difficulties of the case, and one of the most arduous was that, to a large extent, the question of public health to-day fell, according to the ordinary interpretation of the Constitution, upon the Administrators. Hon. members would remember that under the existing laws in South Africa powers in regard to public health were given to local authorities, and they were entrusted to a very large extent with public health; and hon. members would see that a very large constitutional question was raised by the motion.
And how did you give me an answer about cholera?
I have given you an answer, and will continue to give you answers. I want you to have a sense of responsibility. It is not only a question of public health; it is also a question of appointing departments in terms of the Constitution. Proceeding, he said that his feeling was very strongly in favour of centralising the control of public health under the Union, and as a Union Department, but he had repeatedly pointed out the immense constitutional difficulties that now surrounded the subject, and while he had no objection to the motion or the amendment, they would have to go much more thoroughly into this question with the Provincial Administration, and also the Public Service Commission, before they committed them selves. All these manners he was going to consider very carefully, and in due course, no doubt, some action would be taken in the matter. In the meantime, he had no objection to the motion and amendment being passed. With regard to the larger issues which had been raised, he agreed with hon. members who had urged the extreme importance of the large questions of public health that had been referred to that night. It was perfectly true that sleeping sickness was approaching South Africa; it was perfectly true, also, that phthisis, or consumption —a disease which should be unknown in such a country as South Africa—was steadily undermining the health of not only the white, but the native population, and if he remained the Minister responsible for the public health, he was going to propose, in due course, very drastic remedies to that House. He would spare no effort to help the country on the road to health, and to cure those evils which were not indigenous, but which had been introduced here, and which might be stamped out, if proper measures were taken. It would be more proper to explain what was to be done in this connection when they were dealing with the Estimates.
said that it had been said by the House that diseases of stock should not be left to the Provincial Council, but should be dealt with by that House. Well, surely it was more important that human diseases should have the attention of the Government, and of the House, than that animal disease should be so considered. Was the Minister of Education prepared to do away with his portfolio, and say that they should close the schools because they could not cope with education, and because there were certain evils? No; the Minister of the Interior did not expect him to do anything of the sort. What the Minister of Education did and what the Minister of the Interior supported, was that they must have more education, and that they did not have enough of it. Diseases had been stamped out which would, but for the work of their own M.O.H., have spread through the country. Plague had been stamped out—(cheers)—for which they had to thank their medical officers. In regard to the introduction of tuberculosis into the country many years ago, he said that the doctors were not to blame, because they did not then know of the infectivity of the disease as they did after Koch had discovered the tubercle bacillus. It had, in past years, ‘ been thought a good thing to send persons suffering from consumption to South Africa, because of the dry air there. Butt he disease had been spread from missionaries, who were suffering from tuberculosis, who had been sent out to labour amongst the natives. Dr. Watkins went on to refer to his own experiences as a district surgeon in drawing attention to the spread of syphilis in the Free State about 30 years ago. He also spoke of the ravages wrought by diphtheria, when victims were claimed from farm to farm. He next referred to the terrible scourges caused by small-pox. He declared that we did not pay half as much attention to the diseases of human beings as we did to diseases of stock. He hoped the Minister of the Interior would take the matter seriously into consideration— not, however, as the Minister of Railways sometimes promised to take matters into his consideration. An expert should be employed to forward the cause of preventive medicine, and to make the country impregnable against disease.
said he wished to deny the accuracy of what had been said in regard to the Free State. He had had dozens of cups of coffee in the country districts here, and had never suffered any evil results. It was the gross exaggeration which made one inclined not to give the matter the attention it deserved. The King could do no wrong —that Ministry could do no right. Their medical friends wanted a Department created on the spur of the moment, and they got excited because the Minister did not get up and create a department immediately. Had all these matters been neglected? No, they had four Departments at work, and they had been at work for years. They had spent a tremendous amount on leprosy; one would have thought from the debate that they had done nothing. Then they had done a lot with regard to lunacy, and they had one of the best experts to deal with this question. They also had in the Orange Free State at the present time a Medical Department, with experts who were working quietly and without advertising what they had been doing. There was a cry of “Wolf, wolf,” but there was no particular wolf at this time. He thought the Cape Colony was justly proud of its Medical Officer. When (proceeded Mr. Fischer) a few postal clerks were removed to Pretoria there was a cry of centralisation, but now it was suggested that the Medical Departments should be centralised at Pretoria. He wanted to show that there had been an exaggeration of facts by some of the hon. members who had addressed the House. There had been too much forgetfulness of the rules of commonsense in regard to this matter. They had four Departments at work at the present time, and things were not going to the dogs, but going on well. They should exercise patience, and they would hind all would be well. They should not rush on sentiment and frantically-made speeches.
The debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at